Articles Tagged "Claes Johnson"

The leaked Second Order Draft IPCC AR5 essentially repeats the AR4 estimate of a climate sensitivity of 3 C:

#Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 2°C–4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C. The most likely value is near 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity greater than about 6°C–7°C is very unlikely.

Let me here leak the following update of my previous 10 times smaller estimate of climate sensitivity coming down to 0.3 C, based on the following argument using the standard numbers of

It is illuminating to watch the CH 4 UK documentary Green House Conspiracy from 1990. We see that the hoax of CO2 global warming was effectively deconstructed twenty years ago, by media which then turned into one-sided propaganda machines for CO2 alarm leading up to its peak at the beginning of the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009. Media which were unable to counter the collapse of CO2 alarmism that followed the collapse towards the end of the conference.

Johnson is among 22 leading international experts who have dared to join forces and speak out in a blockbuster of a book that exposes the fraudulent science and calculations built into the theory of man-made global warming. The two-volume publication skillfully shreds the lies of government climatologists that faked the warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by falsely multiplying the numbers three times over.

Cynics are claiming the teaching ban is a knee-jerk panic reaction to these startling revelations that Johnson had dared to explain in depth to his inquisitive students.

Never before have so many of the world’s leading experts, skeptical of the global warming fraud, come together in one united front to slay that mythical beast. This publication is the new benchmark; here a line is drawn and a battle fought for our future and our children’s future.

‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ is the world’s first and only full volume publication that expertly debunks the established theory of man-made global warming- the so-called ‘greenhouse gas effect.’ Prepare to be astounded. The hardest job for me has been keeping the facts we reveal under wraps for so long!

John O'Sullivan

*** PROMOTIONAL MESSAGE***

I do not make this prediction lightly: so utterly irrefutable and powerful is its message that 'Slaying the Sky Dragon’ will become the biggest selling science book since Stephen Hawking’s ‘Brief History of Time.’

One year after Climategate the greenhouse gas theory, the absolute cornerstone of IPCC ‘science,’ is torn to shreds. In an unprecedented achievement 24 international experts (over 2 volumes) have worked tirelessly to compose the definitive masterpiece of skeptical science.

Suing scientists for incorrect science has a long tradition: Galileo in front of the Inquisition.

Global climate politics has been strongly influenced by the sequence of Assessment Reports 1-4 by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC describing itself as follows:

#IPCC is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.
#The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change.
#It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis.
#By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.

Top international experts prove British numbers on carbon dioxide are wrong. Royal Society blunder grossly exaggerates climate impact.

German chemist, Dr Klaus Kaiser has published evidence that proves the Royal Society (RS), London, has been caught out making schoolboy errors in mathematical calculations over the duration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere. Backed up by a review by a leading Swedish mathematics professor the revelation is a serious embarrassment to the credibility of the once revered British science institute and a major setback for its claims about climate change.

A gaffe in their own basic calculations led the RS to falsely find that CO2 would stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years rather than a dozen or so as per peer-reviewed studies show. Global warming skeptics have been quick to condemn the error and demand an apology and immediate correction.

The Royal Society advises the British government on matters concerning climate change. Due to the scale of the error any forthcoming review will necessarily result in a substantial downward revision of the threat posed by CO2 in the official government numbers.

Updated below with more by James Delingpole and comments by Piers Corbyn

Professor Johnson is pointing to the heart of the matter here, that this 'settled science' doesn't just suffer from modeling difficulties but is inherently incoherent, a fatal flaw which most physicists have so far failed to notice. AS.

Freeman Dyson: The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

Robert Laughlin: The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control.

Edward Teller: Society's emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming--the jury is still out.

Frederick Seitz: Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

Robert Jastrow: The scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.

William Nirenberg: The available data on climate change, however, do not support these predictions, nor do they support the idea that human activity has caused, or will cause, a dangerous increase in global temperatures. ...These facts indicate that theoretical estimates of the greenhouse problem have greatly exaggerated its seriousness.

By Swedish professor of applied mathematics Claes Johnson. Like water, thermal energy always flows downhill, i.e., it spontaneously degrades if given an avenue for transfer and exhausts itself in the process. Recollecting this energy and making it concentrated again demands an outside agency with energy of its own. So if back-radiation does transfer heat to the very body that is radiating this energy, this may be proof of God's existence. For it would truly be a miracle. AS.

This post connects to previous posts arguing that backradiation is unphysical.

Recall that backradiation from atmospheric greenhouse CO2 is the scientific corner-stone of IPCC climate alarmism, supported by in particular the Royal Society and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. This corner-stone is unphysical and purely fictional.

In Computational Black Body Radiation I give a mathematical explanation of Planck's black body radiation law based on finite precision computation, as an alternative to the statistics of quanta used by Planck himself.

The basic problem is to explain why and how nature avoids an ultra-violet catastrophy by cutting off radiation of frequencies higher than a certain cut-off frequency proportional to the temperature according to Wien's displacement Law (see fig above): Higher temperature allows higher frequencies to be radiated, as seen in the color of a fire changing with temperature.

Planck explains the cut-off using statistical mechanics by viewing radiating waves to be assembled from a certain smallest unit of energy (quanta) and assuming that high energy/frequency is rare because it requires assembly of many quanta.

The laws of heat transfer apply equally to conduction and radiation. Just as visible light cannot be reflected back to an object to make it brighter, neither can an infrared reflection make it hotter. Greenhouse theory offers a false physics, then, and reradiating CO2 molecules cannot heat a surface whose heat they are reacting to. The same professor of applied mathematics who borrowed my mirror example and came to the same conclusion about the actual behavior of radiant energy, amplified that conclusion just today: AS.

This detail of a UN/IPCC chart depicts an impossible process

In short: heat flows from hot to cold but there is no physics corresponding to a flow from cold to hot analogous to "backradiation". Heat can radiate from a hot to a cold body, but not from a cold to a hot. In other words:

Prior posts have shown intuitive examples that the theory of back radiation from greenhouse gases causing warming is fictitious, that NASA's Earth energy budget does not include back radiation at all (in stark contrast to the IPCC which shows it to be unidirectional and 95% of the solar input), and that at least 28 other analyses of the physics agree that back radiation can not cause additional increase in global temperature. The IPCC Earth energy budget was created by Kevin Trenberth, author of the climategate email stating "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". Most likely, the reason the Trenberth/IPCC Earth energy budget can't account for the lack of warming is because warming from greenhouse gas back radiation doesn't exist.

Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, has a blog for those interested in the mathematics & physics of the atmosphere, and has a new post today which also finds the conventional greenhouse gas theory of back radiation or reradiation causing global warming to be fictitious:

» How much "Man Made" CO2 Is In The Earth's Atmosphere?
I think ALL of the CO2 in the Earth's Atmosphere is from man.
I'm not sure how much "Man Made" CO2 is in the Earth's Atmosphere.
There is .04% CO2 in the Earth's Atmosphere and of that "Man" has added an extra 4% (1 part in 62,500)